Chooks ignored in argument over free range egg labelling

BE ALERT and alarmed – Australian governments are determined to regulate the egg market.

A meeting of Consumer Affairs Ministers in June agreed that “further policy intervention” was needed to enhance consumer confidence and certainty for egg labelling and production standards.

The Consumer Affairs Australia New Zealand (CAANZ) working group is preparing a draft National Consumer Information Standard (NCIS) on egg labelling for consideration in February.

Among the items under consideration are; a basic definition of ‘free range’ for egg labelling purposes; a possible ‘defence’ to assist producers uncertain of when it would be appropriate to use a free range label; the mandatory disclosure of specific information to consumers; and the possible creation of specifically-defined labelling categories, such as ‘premium free range’ and ‘access to range’.

What prompted this is an obsessive interest in free-range eggs by the ACCC.

Some large egg producers were prosecuted for misleading consumers.

A judge found the producers liable and declared free range meant hens were able to move about freely on an open range on most days and that most of them do so.

The ACCC embraced this view enthusiastically, declaring, ‘We reject claims that it is acceptable to tell consumers that eggs are from free range hens when the outdoor range is not regularly used by the hens – whether this is the result of farming practices or for any other reason’.

At the same time, suspiciously coincidental with the ACCC’s obsession, various animal rights groups, with the naïve support of Choice and the self-interested support of boutique free range egg producers, launched a campaign to limit use of the free range term to producers who maintained a stocking density that met their expectations.

At the extreme end of that spectrum are the Greens and animal rights groups, which want a hen density of 750 per hectare.

Choice and the boutique producers support 1500 hens per hectare.

Coles and Woolworths accept 10,000 while the Australian Egg Corporation modified its stance from 20,000 hens per hectare to 10,000.

At the same time, pressure is being brought to bear on retailers so that only free range eggs are offered for sale.

Forgotten in all this were consumers, among whom surveys reveal that hen density of 10,000 hens per hectare and probably 20,000 if they were in a green paddock would meet their expectations of free range.

Also forgotten were the chooks.

This issue is about aesthetics and what people would want if they were a chook, not whether chooks are actually better off.

As it happens, hens in layer cages live longer and lay more eggs than hens in barns and free range environments.

When free to interact, poultry spend a lot of time and energy sorting out their pecking order instead of eating or laying eggs.

It is also not necessarily wise for hens to go outside, even if they are able to do so.

There are hawks, foxes, dust, heat and other nasties out there, as well as exposure to diseases from wild birds.

Inside there is food, water, a comfortable temperature plus safety.

Hens may not be geniuses but they have a reasonable sense of survival.

The notion that they must go outside in order to be classified as free range assumes they are total idiots.

Consumers receive no practical benefits from choosing free range eggs.

In nutritional terms, they are identical to cage eggs.

The only difference is that eggs from free range farms are more likely to carry harmful bacteria than eggs from cage production systems, as there is an overall higher level of contamination and the nesting system leads to more cracked shells.

And while it is true that sales of free range eggs now exceed those of cage eggs, it is not at all certain this would remain the case if producers were compelled to comply with the more radical densities being proposed.

For example, if free range was defined as 750 or 1500 hens per hectare, the price of eggs would soar to more than $12 per dozen.

Surveys indicate consumers will not pay more than $6 per dozen which equates to about 10,000 hens for hectare.

As mentioned, this is also not about animal welfare.

Hens would be no better off if all cage egg production was abandoned.

The animal rights lobby wants to end all exploitation of animals for human benefit, including commercial egg production.

Neither the welfare of chooks nor benefit to consumers matters.

To them, the ACCC has taken on the role of useful idiot.

From a government perspective, the key questions are consumer perceptions and prices.

Are consumers being misled when they buy free range eggs and is it legitimate for force up the price of eggs based on their perceptions?

These are questions that markets are very capable of resolving.

The intervention of governments, almost invariably, causes disruption and distortion.

Already the market is responding to the public debate, with some retailers selling ‘non-cage’ and ‘barn-laid’ eggs in addition to free range.

There is a legal obligation for non-cage eggs to be laid outside a cage and for barn-laid eggs to be laid in a barn, but government intervention is not needed.

The same applies to the various other egg labelling options that might be considered.

Eggs produced from hens at stocking densities of 750 or less per hectare, for instance, could be labelled ‘super free range’ or ‘extra free range’.

Free range producers who tuck their hens into bed at night could label their eggs ‘premium free range with love’ or something equally creative.

If consumers find it appealing, they will pay for it.

The notion that the government should seek to define such labels falls into the category of fatal conceit.

The ACCC should focus on genuine consumer hazards, not anthropomorphic perceptions and governments should seek to reduce regulation, not increase it.

Page:
3
Date: Newest first | Oldest first

READER COMMENTS

RSPCA Australia
11/01/2016 10:57:13 AM

Food labelling should be clear and unambiguous, so consumers choosing to buy higher welfare can be sure they are getting just that. Egg producers will also benefit from agreement around the minimum requirements for free-range production. Consumer demand for cage-free eggs (incl. free-range) has never been stronger, for the simple reason that keeping hens in cages is cruel and more than 11 million hens in cages in Australia cannot; perch, dust bathe, scratch for food, fully stretch their wings or lay their eggs in a nest. Read more: http://bit.ly/1JEjZyc
ILoveFood
11/01/2016 11:52:19 AM

LMAO Is this honestly the best defence you have for battery hen farming? Making snide childish exaggerations and insults at the concept of humane farming with no real level of analysis or insight. Just sneering? This is why the welfare of animals and consumers is best NOT left to farmers and their representative bodies who lack any ability to comprehend complex issues & take a reasoned stand on them. It's not rocket science tho. Consumers are no longer happy to support cruel farming or food production practices. You old fossils need to catch up and start acting like grown ups or move on.
Albi
12/01/2016 9:57:52 AM

May I remind commenters that David is a veterinarian. I'm no vet but do see every day how chickens in large flocks behave and it's not always so clear cut. For instance, a sick hen in a battery system is quickly and easily noticed while a hen that is sick in a "free range" environment often disappears without a trace after being completely devoured by the others. This poses a quarantine risk where it's easier for the whole flock to be wiped out via a virile pathogen. Believe it or not, farmers actually know more about their animals or crops than armchair commenters.
Hugh
12/01/2016 12:27:20 PM

According to your argument, if I could guarantee your health, longevity and personal safety you would be willing to live in a prison cell rather than take your chances in the real world. Is this how you feel? I doubt it. The problem is that too many in the agriculture industry "welfare" = physical health, exclusively. To people that are sympathetic to the plight of animals, "welfare" = physical and psychological health. People like you need to adjust your old fashioned thinking and start realising that animals are sentient, and they feel. No one wants to live in a cage. Wake up.
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at reclaimfreedom@gmail.com

COMMENTS

light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who